Attendees:
Mozilla - David Baron
W3C - Bert Bos
Microsoft - Arron Eicholz
Invited Expert - Elika Etemad
Hewlett-Packard - Ming Gao (scribe)
Disruptive Innovations - Daniel Glazman (chair)
Hewlett-Packard - Melinda Grant (ghosting for HP using fantasai as a medium)
Invited Expert - Molly Holzschlag
Microsoft - Saloni Mira Rai
Apple - David Singer
Adobe - Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-css-irc
Meeting: Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Teleconference
Date: 21 May 2008
Summary
-------
Almost the entire meeting was a discussion of the module list that is
not yet drafted for the charter. Several conflicting arguments were
brought up. Here's an unordered summary of points in the discussion.
- The criteria agreed upon for adding modules to the charter is
significant implementation interest from at least two implementors
and an advocate within the working group to drive spec editing.
- An item must be in scope for the charter for us to work on it, because
companies want to be aware of any potential patent commitments they
must make by participating.
- In the past the CSSWG has had a long list of modules in scope for
the charter. Few of these make significant progress during the charter
period.
- W3C Management is unhappy that the CSSWG hasn't been completing all
the work in its charter.
- Adobe is particularly uncomfortable with keeping all the modules
in the charter list right now and threatened to resign if they were
all kept. Patent commitments were a cited concern. Another was that
the WG can't finish everything on the proposed list in the 2-year
charter period... (no explanation why this is itself a problem for
Adobe outside the patent policy concern).
- Bert points out that patent policy has several points of entry and
exit, one of which is the charter, another of which is the publication
of a an official public Working Draft.
- The CSSWG charter is very precise about what is in scope. The scope
can be argued to be broad by the number of modules, but it is not
in any way ambiguous because all items proposed for the charter have
a working draft already.
- HP's representatives felt that items should not be cut from the charter
in order to make the WG focus on high-priority items: that's the job
the chairs should be doing. The high-priority items should be explicitly
identified as what the WG plans to deliver, and the medium priority items
should be in scope but explicitly listed as to be worked on as time and
resources allow.
- Things can be added to the charter by an amendment process. Adobe was
advocating that only high-priority items be in the charter and others
added as necessary via amendment.
- Mozilla expressed concern that if lower-priority items are forced out
of the charter they will be worked on elsewhere (e.g. in the WHATWG).
- Apple wants to develop their proposed extensions through standardization
discussions rather than by forging ahead on their own.
- Molly expressed concern that items that don't make the charter won't
appear to the public to be on the WG's radar. It was pointed out that
the website has and will continue to have an exhaustive list.
The main conflict here seems to be whether
* items should be in scope of the charter if there is reasonable
expectation of work being done on them, and charter amendment
should be used only in unexpected circumstances
* or items should be in scope of the charter only if there is a firm
commitment to work on them at this time, and the amendment process
should be used more commonly to add things in as they gain priority.
The conclusion of the discussions was that the chairs should draft the
module list section of the charter. Currently only the unedited summary
of implementor feedback has been written:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0033.html
Opera was not represented in these discussions. They also have not sent
in any comments previously.
Resolved that Yahoo's rep can attend the next F2F as an observer.
Full minutes below.
===============================================================================
<dsinger> Dave Singer is on the call and IRC but will have to drop off
around 9:30, sorry.
Charter
-------
daniel: got comments from dbaron. mainly about not having module list
daniel: some add'l comments from the mailing list
daniel: Alex (MS) think the charter is ok
daniel: need Chris Lilley in the loop
daniel: any other comments from CSS WG?
molly: a question: the charter need to be approved by CSS WG, and then
put in place?
dbaron: need to be approved by all W3C
daniel: just a clarification: the charter is not being approved by CSS
WG and has not gone to the W3C membership at large
daniel: the charter has been submitted for three weeks, so assume most
of WG members are ok
daniel: no response from Apple or Opera, nothing from chaals
daniel: assume the charter is ok with the above mentioned feedbacks
daniel: if any issue, say it now
<Bert> The only official (required) part of the charter process is the
review by the W3C members, but the better we prepare the charter
in the WG, the more likely it is to pass the W3C membership...
<dsinger> I am checking my apple colleagues (team leaders)...
steve Z.: what does the prioritization mean? I am a bit confused.
daniel: members of WG express their interest but no one would tell the
reasonable timeframe for implementation
daniel: interests vs commitment to deliver; impossible to confirm further
steve: my concern is that part of the reason we make no progress, is
working on too much things and nothing get done.
steve: if so, I would vote against the charter;
daniel: maybe a comprise is to restrict the deliverables to be the high
priority list of the documents
dsinger: make sure that we would have enough resource and dialogue and
support would enable progress
molly: how long is the charter in place?
steve: two years
molly: every things on the priority list would be done in two years? right?
steve: if things change, then do a charter revision.
daniel: if a thing is not on the list, does not mean it is not in the scope
fantasai: we can't have absolute list (or commitment); try our best.
dbaron: my understanding is the opposite of what you said (daniel); we
could work on it if interested; people won't make patent on
these things we are interested to work on;
<dsinger> I would like to be very clear whether the charter is a priority
list (and other things can be worked on) or whether it is an
exhaustive list (and, to be worked on, something must be on the
charter). I thought I had previously heard the second.
steve: looking at the charter now.
dbaron: a risk knocking off the charter of low priority list things, is
discouraging people coming to the WG.
molly: on the list and things FYI, both.
dsinger: we commit to high priority items and willing to work on other
low priority items.
steve: we can't publish a working draft until getting director's approval
steve: not sure what that means
daniel: we can still make revision if needed; and submit new ideas to WG.
daniel: Opera submitted the Media Query which was not on the list, as an
example.
steve: did you go to AC?
daniel: not sure.
steve: the problem I see is that we may go another two years without
progress or deliverables
<dsinger> I would be unhappy to see all mention of the medium and
low-priority items removed from the charter; we do have items
there that we think can be progressed with reasonable support,
and we don't want to be told that there isn't time for them
because they are not on the charter.
dbaron: it is something we never done before (i.e. adding new things to
the charter via revisioning)
steve: patent policy only went into the charter in the recently(?)
steve: is it really realistic to add more things to the priority list?
molly: if you remove the things from the charter or the list which is a
public document, where people can find them again anywhere?
molly: add'l (new) resource, won't take core resource away from items
committed.
daniel: using a feature(?) being implemented in Safari as an example.
steve: don't see new people doing the work; see same people doing the work
fantasai: leave them in to have an opportunity, while focusing WG resource
working on the priority list
fantasai: leave them in if they have a chance to release a working draft.
molly: medium or low priority items do not have a deliverable, is that
your concern, steve?
daniel: AC voting on the charter with patent policy in mind. that is the key.
molly: don't know necessarily what the deliverables are going to be
Molly suggests making the lower-priority items informative.
fantasai: It can't be informtive for the public. The charter needs to be
normative, otherwise it won't be covered by the patent policy.
steve: that is the catch of the patent policy.
<dsinger> there is a pretty clear deliverable for our animations and
transitions etc.
<fantasai> steve, can you put a pointer to the part of the patent policy
that requires explicit deliverables?
daniel: to summarize steve's position:
daniel: 1. need to have deliverables
daniel: 2. don't want to close the list of activities in WG
daniel: compromise:
daniel: having a list of deliverables, and willing to make revision if
new deliverables to be added
<dsinger> can we split the list into items with deliverables defined
(sub-divided hi, medium, low) and a list of discussion areas
(those without a deliverable yet defined)?
daniel: sounds beauratic (or sounds French)
dsinger: for those having deliverables, put them into high, medium, low
lists;
dsinger: then cateogirze the things are interesting but no identified
deliverables, into another group for discussion
dsinger: when with working draft or deliverables identified, moving them
into priority list then
daniel: AC would perceive CSS WG not effective, still having a too long
list and nothing to deliver
fantasai: most of things on the list have a working draft, though some are
old
daniel: having working draft or willingness, but no time or resource to
work on them
daniel: this is about to getting a firm list of items into the charter.
daniel: need to remove things from the list for now; if more things in
scope, make a revision
<dsinger> I would take the high-priority list, and those of the
medium-priority list that have both (a) an active proponent
and (b) a clear deliverable.
daniel: this is the only way to go (forward)
molly: ok, where can those things interesting reside somewhere public
have access to?
fantasai: the complete list is on the website
daniel: see dsinger's IRC comment
daniel: can't solve the issue now; you need to discuss this with your AC
rep.
daniel: think dsinger's comment make sense.
<dsinger> we really don't want to 'foist' our animations and transitions
on the industry as a fait accompli, without discussion at the w3c
daniel: high priority list + medium p. list with active proponent and
deliverable
steve: all things on the list have active proponent and deliverable, so
nothing drops.
daniel: clear deliverable path (for medium item)
<dsinger> dave regrets that his 9:30 appointment has arrived
fantasai: commit high priority list and medium list is in scope
<dsinger> I'l get back asap
<Zakim> -dsinger
steve: what does the patent policy say?
steve: if issue, Adobe may not continue in WG
daniel: in SD, we discuss to have a restricted list of priority items.
daniel: we also say, items in medium or low priority list won't be in
the charter.
daniel: can't have a long list of priority items. otherwise, would be
the same as before.
daniel: 2nd issue, is patent policy
fantasai: what items should be dropped, from Adobe point of view?
steve: should focus on high priority list only
steve: need to ask lawyer (patent policy)
bert: you only commit to those that are published
daniel: if we add items w/o high priority list, once it publishes,
patent policy apply
steve: what happens when all our discussions and drafts are public?
fantasai: the official Working Draft on the TR page, would trigger
the patent policy clocks
steve: for Chair to realistically go through the list and what can be
accomplished in this time period. Nothing was accomplished in
this last period.
fantasai: even in the last period, there are things gets published.
molly: we want be able to have others to hear what are other things
interesting to work on (i.e. in scope)
steve: agree so don't remove anything published on the website
steve: not against on charter revisioning
<dbaron> I can't seem to get a word in... but I think dropping a bunch
of the items on the medium priority list off the charter will
just force people to work on them outside of the CSS WG.
<dbaron> I'm also worried that the current modules list is biased
because the implementor feedback wasn't normalized, so
implementors who put more specs in the "strong interest"
category had more influence on the list.
daniel: Chair to discuss with members, and make a proposal to WG
steve: draft section 2.2 and come back to WG
daniel: yes, draft it asap and need WG to comment on immediately
<dbaron> can you not hear me?
<Zakim> +dsinger
dbaron: 1. drop medium list item would force work outside CSS WG
dbaron: 2. concern about the process
dbaron: submit a short list for high priority list; though doing so,
I lost influence
steve: did the same way
danie: most people, submit high priority list of 5 items or less
daniel: most people submitted, short list of H.P., long list of
M.P., short list of no interest
molly: agree with dbaron's #1 point.
fantasai: should rely on Chair to keep us on the high priority list
fantasai: rather than using charter to do so
daniel: in theory, yes; but, concern about patent
daniel: this is different than how we operate before
fantasai: can we talk to the lawyer as what are concerning the
lawyers on patent?
steve: suggest chairs to discuss and drop things from the list
daniel: peter, me will work together with help of Bert.
Background-size Issue
---------------------
daniel: background-size, for 5 minutes?
fantasai: prefer people to read the issue:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0178.html
Yahoo Observer
--------------
Topic: any objection for Yahoo rep to join next f-t-f meeting?
no objection
Molly: Alex does not have a problem.